International

Supreme Court gun ruling stuns Las Vegas shooting survivors

Published

2 years ago

June 15, 2024

Supreme Court gun ruling stuns Las Vegas shooting survivors

On 1 October 2017, Heather Gooze was serving drinks at the Route 91 music festival in Las Vegas when concert-goers began running into her bar, screaming and covered in blood.

A gunman perched high in a Las Vegas hotel had opened fire on the festivities below. He killed 60 people and wounded over 400 more. He was able to carry out what is still the deadliest mass shooting in US history because of a mechanism he installed on his gun known as a bump stock.

In the aftermath of the massacre, then-President Donald Trump banned bump stocks, a modification that allows a rifle to fire like a machine gun. It was a rare example of the US making a change to its gun policies in the wake of a mass shooting, and it was a reform that survivors of the attack welcomed.

The ban was all the more extraordinary because it was instituted by a Republican president and supported by the National Rifle Association, figures that would normally oppose a gun control proposal.

On Friday, the US Supreme Court struck down the ban, deciding in a 6-3 opinion that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had overstepped its authority to outlaw the device.

For survivors like Ms Gooze, who identifies as liberal and thought Trump’s ban was “phenomenal”, the ruling felt like a step backward for the country.

“Who has ever used a bump stock for good?” she told the BBC. “There’s no reason for a civilian to use a mass shooting machine.”

Ms Gooze, 50, still vividly remembers the panic of helping people flee the carnage, and the frantic battle to save the people struck by the more than 1,000 rounds that the gunman fired with the help of his weapon’s modification.

“I had my finger in the bullet hole of one of our angels in the back of their head,” she said of one victim she tried to save. She stayed with the body of another victim for hours, using a phone she found in their pocket to contact the family.

“I watched people’s lives change right in front of my face, as well as my own,” she said.

One of those lives was Brittany Quintero’s. Ms Quintero was separated from her friend in the chaos of the shooting, and though they both survived, she has spent years working through the trauma the shooting inflicted.

READ ALSO:

She told the BBC that the Supreme Court’s decision had left her reeling.

“It feels like another slap in the face, to be honest,” she said.

Ms Quintero, 41, said she does not necessarily believe that more stringent gun restrictions would help prevent mass shootings. She also believes not enough proposed solutions address mental health.

“I don’t think taking away people’s Second Amendment rights is going to solve these things that keep occurring,” she said, referring to the protections for gun owners enshrined in the US Constitution.

“If someone has it in their mind to do it, they’re going to find a way or other means.”

But despite her reservations, she still thinks the Supreme Court was wrong to reinstate access to bump stocks.

The Route 91 survivors were not universally disheartened by the Supreme Court decision. Several were discussing the news in a private Facebook group, Ms Gooze said, and some members of the community had responded that the ruling did not bother them.

“A gun isn’t the issue, we need them to keep what little freedom we have left. It’s the government that’s the enemy,” one survivor wrote in a message that Ms Gooze read to the BBC.

Gun violence remains a major public safety issue in the United States. The nation has experienced 215 mass shootings so far in 2024, according to the Gun Violence Archive (their methodology defines a mass shooting as when four or more people are shot or killed, not including the shooter).

Both Ms Gooze and Ms Quintero lamented that the gun debate had grown so politicised.

“I don’t think I’m ever going to see in my lifetime a true law or decision that will be made to solve the gun violence issue,” Ms Gooze said.

Repeated attempts to ban bump stocks through federal legislation have stalled, and face little chance of passing in the near term due to a divided Congress.

Trump, who is again running for president, said he would respect the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down his policy and reaffirmed his support for broader access to guns.

“The Court has spoken and their decision should be respected,” Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “President Trump has been and always will be a fierce defender of Americans’ Second Amendment rights and he is proud to be endorsed by the NRA.”

In video on X, formerly Twitter, the gun shop owner who challenged the bump stock ban at the Supreme Court celebrated his victory and said he had prevented the government from banning other gun parts.

The nation’s highest court sided with his argument that the Trump administration overstepped when it sought to regulate bump stocks like machine guns.

“I stood and fought,” said gun shop owner Michael Cargill, “and because of this, the bump stock case is going to be the case that saves everything.”

Supreme Court gun ruling stuns Las Vegas shooting survivors

BBC

International

Putin Offers Iran Diplomatic Support After Collapse of US–Iran Talks

Published

5 hours ago

April 12, 2026

Trends Admin

Russian President Vladimir Putin

Putin Offers Iran Diplomatic Support After Collapse of US–Iran Talks

Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered diplomatic support to Iran following the collapse of high-level negotiations between Tehran and the United States, as tensions continue to escalate across the Middle East.

According to a Kremlin readout reported by AFP, Putin held a phone conversation on Sunday with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, during which he expressed Russia’s readiness to help facilitate a political and diplomatic settlement to the crisis.

The Kremlin said Putin emphasized Moscow’s willingness to support efforts aimed at achieving what he described as a “just and lasting peace” in the region, including acting as a mediator if required.

The call came shortly after the breakdown of US–Iran talks, which had been aimed at resolving long-standing disputes over Iran’s nuclear programme and wider regional security issues but ended without agreement.

US–Iran Negotiations Collapse After Months of Tension

The negotiations reportedly involved senior US officials, including lead negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, but collapsed after prolonged discussions failed to produce meaningful progress.

READ ALSO:

A US official said the delegation withdrew following what it described as unproductive talks, while confirming that no immediate follow-up meeting had been scheduled.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf blamed Washington for the breakdown, saying US negotiators failed to build trust during the discussions. He added that Iranian proposals were constructive but were not properly considered.

Diplomatic Breakdown Raises Regional Tensions

The collapse of the talks has further deepened uncertainty in the Middle East, where tensions have already been heightened by recent military and political disputes involving Iran, the United States, and Israel.

Analysts warn that continued failure to reach diplomatic compromise could worsen instability in the region and increase pressure on global energy markets, particularly oil and gas supply routes.

Russia Seeks Greater Role in Mediation Efforts

Putin’s engagement with Iran is being viewed as part of Russia’s broader effort to position itself as a key diplomatic actor in the crisis.

The Kremlin said Russia remains open to supporting dialogue between all sides, suggesting Moscow could play a more active role in future mediation efforts if both parties agree.

For now, no new date has been announced for the resumption of US–Iran negotiations, leaving diplomatic efforts at a standstill as international calls for restraint continue.

Putin Offers Iran Diplomatic Support After Collapse of US–Iran Talks

International

Trump Orders US Navy to Blockade Strait of Hormuz After Iran Talks Collapse

Published

8 hours ago

April 12, 2026

Trends Admin

Trump Orders US Navy to Blockade Strait of Hormuz After Iran Talks Collapse

Donald Trump has ordered the United States Navy to begin an immediate blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, escalating tensions with Iran after the collapse of critical peace talks in Islamabad.

The directive, announced Sunday via Truth Social, signals a major shift from diplomacy to military pressure in one of the world’s most sensitive geopolitical flashpoints. Trump said U.S. naval forces would intercept all vessels attempting to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz, particularly those suspected of paying transit tolls to Iran, which he described as “extortion.”

The move follows the breakdown of high-level negotiations between Washington and Tehran, widely seen as a rare attempt to de-escalate tensions. Although Trump acknowledged that discussions were partly productive, he insisted that the core issue—Iran’s nuclear programme—remained unresolved.

Sources familiar with the talks revealed that the مذاکرات collapsed over Iran’s refusal to give up its enriched uranium stockpile and its insistence on maintaining control over shipping activities in the strategic waterway. The Iranian delegation, led by Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, blamed the United States for failing to build trust during the negotiations.

The Strait of Hormuz blockade carries enormous global implications. The narrow waterway handles roughly 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, making it one of the most critical energy chokepoints in the world. Any disruption threatens to send shockwaves through global markets.

READ ALSO:

Indeed, oil prices have already surged amid the crisis, with Brent crude and WTI climbing above $115 per barrel at peak levels. Analysts warn that the blockade could push prices even higher, worsening inflation and straining economies heavily dependent on energy imports.

The escalation comes just a day after the U.S. military intensified operations in the region. The United States Central Command confirmed that American forces had begun mine-clearing operations in the Strait of Hormuz, amid allegations that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps deployed naval mines to restrict shipping.

Two U.S. Navy destroyers, USS Frank E. Peterson and USS Michael Murphy, were spotted transiting the strait as part of efforts to secure maritime routes and ensure safe passage for commercial vessels.

Trump framed the blockade as a defence of global shipping freedom, warning that any Iranian attack on U.S. or allied vessels would be met with overwhelming force. However, the Pentagon has yet to release full operational details, leaving uncertainty around how the blockade will be enforced.

The situation is further complicated by developments involving Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently signalled that Israeli military operations against Iran are ongoing, despite ceasefire discussions. He stressed that Israel would act independently to protect its national interests.

Experts warn that the U.S.-Iran conflict escalation could rapidly spiral into direct military confrontation, with far-reaching consequences for global security. Shipping companies have already begun rerouting vessels, while insurers are raising premiums due to heightened risks in the Gulf.

As of now, Iranian authorities have not issued an official response to the blockade order. Meanwhile, global markets are bracing for volatility as trading resumes, with investors closely monitoring developments in the region.

The unfolding crisis highlights the fragile state of U.S.-Iran relations and underscores the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz to global energy supply and economic stability.

Trump Orders US Navy to Blockade Strait of Hormuz After Iran Talks Collapse

International

Elon Musk Slams South Africa Over Starlink Ban, Calls Policy ‘Racist’

Published

9 hours ago

April 12, 2026

Trends Admin

𝗘𝗹𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗸

Elon Musk Slams South Africa Over Starlink Ban, Calls Policy ‘Racist’

Elon Musk has escalated his criticism of South Africa, accusing the government of racial discrimination following the continued refusal to grant an operating licence to his satellite internet service, Starlink.

In a strongly worded post on X (formerly Twitter) on Sunday, the SpaceX founder claimed that Starlink’s application had been blocked because he is not Black, despite being born in South Africa. The billionaire further alleged that the company was informally offered a workaround involving the appointment of a Black executive to satisfy ownership requirements, a move he said he rejected on principle.

The controversy centres on South Africa’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) policy, which requires companies operating in sectors like telecommunications to meet equity thresholds, typically mandating at least 30 percent Black ownership. The policy was introduced to correct deep economic imbalances created during apartheid, but it has increasingly become a point of friction for foreign investors.

South African regulators, including the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, have consistently maintained that the rules apply uniformly to all operators and are a legal requirement for licensing. Authorities have pushed back against claims of discrimination, insisting that the policy is aimed at economic redress rather than racial exclusion.

READ ALSO:

Musk has repeatedly criticised the framework, describing it as “unashamedly racist” and claiming that such policies contradict the legacy of Nelson Mandela. He has also alleged that numerous laws in the country unfairly disadvantage non-Black citizens, further fuelling the ongoing debate.

Despite the standoff, Starlink has continued its rapid expansion across Africa, now operating in nearly two dozen countries where it provides high-speed internet access to underserved communities, including schools and healthcare centres. South Africa, however, remains one of the few major economies on the continent where the service is unavailable.

Musk had previously proposed initiatives to support connectivity in rural South African communities, including offers to provide internet access to thousands of schools, but those plans have stalled due to regulatory hurdles tied to ownership compliance.

As of now, the South African government has not issued an official response to Musk’s latest remarks. However, previous statements suggest that there is unlikely to be any regulatory concession without full adherence to B-BBEE requirements.

The dispute highlights a broader tension between South Africa’s post-apartheid transformation policies and the expectations of global technology investors. Analysts say the outcome could shape future investment decisions and influence how African nations balance economic redress with the need to attract international business.

Elon Musk Slams South Africa Over Starlink Ban, Calls Policy ‘Racist’